London, Tuesday. Among the relics in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons are two small fragments preserved in spirit and labelled :— " Two small; portions of small intestine with cancerous ■■ growths projecting above the mucous mem- brane. They came from the museum of Sir Astley Cooper with the following description: ' Incipient fungus in the glands of an intes- tine. Napoleon. Barry O'Meara to Sir Astley Cooper.' It is almost certain that these speci- mens were not taken from the body of Napoleon."

Professor Arthur Keith, the conservator of the museum, has recently carried out investiga- tions into the history and nature of these re- markable specimens, and he has arrived at 6ome conclusions which he will lay before the Hunterian Society at their meeting hi St. Bartholomew's Hospital to-night. His theory is contrary to that accepted by most of the writers on the last years of Napoleon, including lx>rd Rosebery and M. Paul Fremeaux, the author of " The Drama of St. Helena." He claims, in the first place, that no has estab- lished the authenticity of the relics, at present generally doubted; and, in the second, that be has proved that the contention made by Napoleon's surgeon at St. Helena that the Em- peror suffered from a form of tropical fever contracted on the island was true. If his theory is accurate, the accounts of Napoleon's last years and illness will have to be rewritten.

Dr. Keith gave a summary of his case to a London representative of the " Manchester Guardian " to-day. He will point out in his paper that the verdict of modern writers is (1) that in his last illness Napoleon was at- tended by a series of incompetent physicians who formed a wrong opinion of the case and applied disastrous remedies, and (2) Napoleon died of cancer of the stomach, the Emperor himself being the only one to form an approxi- mately accurate diagnosis. He will show that the two specimens from the museum are actu- ally parts of the great Emperor's body, and that they tend to support the now discredited state- ments of the Emperor's physicians as to the nature of the disease — namely, that Napoleon suffered from liver disease induced by the malignancy of the climate. The specimens themselves resemble two small oblong tags of dusky ekin each with a curious wart-like raised patch in its centre. Professor Keith explains why this source of evidence — by far the most important that exists — has been neglected dur- ing the past seventy years. It has been taken

specimens that they contain undoubted evi- dence of cancer, and this being eo doubt has been thrown on their' authenticity on the ground that Dr. AntommaTchi, Napoleon's per- sonal physician, states in his account of the post-mortem examination that the mucous membrane of t.his oanal appeared to be in a sound state — a statement supported by the English 6urgeons present at the autopsy. Fur- ther, Dr. Barry O'Meara was recalled to Eng- land three years before Napoleon's death, " and the steps taken by Napoleon's personal attend- ants to prevent the abstraction of the heart and 6tomach also show the improbability of these specimens baving had the source ascribed to them " (October, 1883). The same line of argu- ment is taken in a letter from M. Paul Fre- meaux published in an English newspaper re- cently. There the matter Tested until sections of the outgrowths were examined under the microscope — a method uwused in diagnosis until long after Napoleon's time. This examin- ation showed that they were not cancerous in nature, and that the patches were similar to those which appear in many chronic diseases that are endemic in the tropics.

The Authenticity of the Relics.

Professor Keith's faith in the authenticity of the relics rested on his belief in Sir Astley Cooper, who was one of the most learned and popular surgeons of his time. "He was the trusted medical adviser to Lord Liverpool, the Tory Prime Minister during the exile, illness, and death of Napoleon. He was well acquainted With Lord Bathurst, Secretary for War and the Colonies, who had the care and keeping of Napoleon. He must have been consulted often by these two men about the Emperor's case. If anyone in England could possibly command or obtain any first-hand evidence from a post- mortem examination he was that man, and he was the last person in the world to deceive himself or wilfully mislead others. We may be certain therefore that he knew how O'Meara obtained the specimens." Dr. Keith's belief in the authenticity is strengthened by a passage which has been overlooked in Antommarchi's report to the effect that he found " small spots and patches of a pale red colour " in this part of the body. How was it, then, that the official report drawn up by the five medical officers who were present made no mention of these appearances? The official report simply states that the stomach was the seat of an extensive cancer, and that the rest of the body was healthy except that the upper surface of the liver was bound to the dome of the diaphragm by adhesions. But every medical man knows that the official report cannot be true. A can- cer so extensive must have spread, and thbe must ha.'e been secondary growths. That there were such secondary growths is learned from Antommarchi's report. The reasons that. we have to go to Antommarchi's account to Obtain the accurate details of the marks of disease are fir.siL that he was an «vt.rAtn«1ir »KU n-iili'-. • x

and pathologist, and, secondly, the official re- port was a political and not a medical docu- ment. "' It had to convince the opponents of Lord Liverpool's Government and the enemies of the Governor of St. Helena, Sir Hudson Lowe, and the partisans ot Napoleon that the Emperor died not from a disease caused by his confinement but by one which was regarded at that time as a dispensation of Providence."

How then did the relics pass from Anto- marchi to O'Meara? Professor Keith has in- vestigated . in detail the history of the two men, and has shown that Antommarchi before going to St. Helena had full opportunity of ascertain- ing from O'Meara in London the nature of Napoleon's complaint, and that there were good reasons why he should afterwards have sent the specimens to O'Meara in support of the theory which they both held— namely, that Napoleon was killed by his confinement in St. Helena. From the summer of 1816 to his death in 1821 Napoleon suffered from a peculiar fever then prevalent in St. Helena. For taking this view O'Meara was dismissed in disgrace by ignorant laymen. The truth is, according to Professor Keith, that in Napoleon's case the presence of cancer was masked by the severity of the original tropical disease. The post- mortem would confirm Antommarchi in the diagnosis which O'Meara and he had made — namely, that the Emperor died of St. Helena disease. Finally, Professor Keith argues that it would have been quite easy for Antommarchi to have abstracted the specimens either during or after the autopsy, and that it is likely that Antommarchi gave the relics to O'Meara in London to add to his collection of Napoleonic relics and to prove their common theory.

Now that these relics have been submitted to modern methods they show, not signs of can- cer but signs of tropical disease. It is an open question, Dr. Keith adds, whether it was the fever or the cancer which actually killed Napoleon.tbut it is certain that whether in St. Helena or out of it cancer would have ended the career of the great Emperor.